Expert: Bobbert - 3/20/2009

Question
QUESTION: I own a Pentium 4 Gateway that is 6 yrs. old.  It has 2 GB RAM and 200G harddrive.  It works great and has way more capacity than I use.  My monitor has started flickering and hesitates to light up.  I can get a new Gateway 19" for $139.99.  Due to age of computer I wonder about the investment and whether I need to catch up on all the improvements and just get a new computer. Are there steps I could take to prolong computer life?  Would you spring for a monitor in this situation?  Thanks for any advice!

ANSWER: If your existing system suits your needs, and you aren't complaining about reliability or performance, I wouldn't suggest replacing it, although it does sound like a new monitor is entirely in order.

-bob


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: On the issue of prolonging computer life.....I keep the computer turned on most of the time.  Is is better to turn it off each evening?  I had it worked on about a year ago and I think the tech "blew the dust out of it"...Is that something that should be done every year or so?  Do you have any idea of the average life span of a computer?  Thanks!

Answer
Cleaning the dust out of your computer should be done relative to how often it "needs doing", in other words, if the system is in a high traffic/dusty environment (or if you have pets with fur) it will need cleaning more often than if its located in a very calm/empty environment and rarely exposed to contact (for example, if you only need to dust your home monthly, the PC likely only needs cleaned every few months, if you dust your home daily (out of a need to control dust, not out of a desire for tidyness :)), you may consider cleaning the PC weekly). You can do this cleaning yourself (canned air is available at many "tech supply" or office supply stores (like Office Max), and if you have the right attachment, a canister vacuum (or similar home vacuum with a hose) can work nearly as well (for much less money)).

As far as the on/off debate, this question has raged on for years, and no conclusive answer has ever been given, there are two sides, the "on all the time" side, and the "off when not in use" side, their arguements are something like this:

On all the time argues:
*less wear and tear on components during boot-up (the system draws more power when its booting up, than when its running)
*less issues with thermal expansion (components won't expand and contract due to heating and cooling often)
*system is available at a moment's notice (this is a big factor for many users)

Off when not in use argues:
*lower power bill
*less run-time (so theoretically, you *may* extend a component's life by not running it 24/7, however I've yet to see any conclusive proof either way (excepting burn-in on phosphor based displays, but this is easily avoided, even on 24/7 run components))
*no noise when not in use


Personally, I agree with the "on all the time" arguements, on the convience fronts, it allows the system to perform maintinence in its "down time" (for example anti-virus scans, software updates, and so on), so I deal with less of this when I need the system (by means of automating these maintinence tasks).

As far as system life, on paper speculation tells me these machines should out-live us, real world experience tells me this isn't always truth, basically if the system is maintained properly, was originally built with "good" parts (meaning not only a high quality part selection and design, but also getting the better parts of the "batch" from the manufacturer), and isn't set out in any extremes (for example if you wished to use the system out doors in a desert, you would be shortening the system life severely, it shouldn't be a problem though. If you wanted an exact "number" of sorts, the best I can do is an analogy:

I've seen workstations come brand new out of the box and fail within 24 hours, and I've got vintage components in my garage that date into the late 1970's and early 1980's, which still run like champs.

-bob